Mark Sanford Loses SC Seat In Primary

n a monumental upset fueled by a Donald Trump tweet, U.S. Rep. Mark Sanford lost his Republican primary to Katie Arrington, a one-term state lawmaker who made loyalty to the president the centerpiece of her campaign.

The defeat, which carries national implications, marks the first time Sanford has lost an election, which began with his first congressional bid in this very district in 1994.

President Trump — making a move unprecedented in South Carolina history — in a late afternoon tweet asked state voters to replace Sanford with Arrington, going so far as to say Sanford is "better off in Argentina," a reference to his adulterous affair when he was governor in 2009.

* Enforce Border Security – America should be guarding her own borders and enforcing her own laws instead of policing the world and implementing UN mandates.

* No Amnesty - The Obama Administration’s endorsement of so-called “Comprehensive Immigration Reform,” granting amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants, will only encourage more law-breaking.

* Abolish the Welfare State – Taxpayers cannot continue to pay the high costs to sustain this powerful incentive for illegal immigration. As Milton Friedman famously said, you can’t have open borders and a welfare state.

* End Birthright Citizenship – As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be granted U.S. citizenship, we’ll never be able to control our immigration problem.

I just saw that woman's picture... holy $#@!ing $#@! on a pogo stick, that woman is ugly. Sanford must have screwed this up royally to get beat by that. Hell, you could win an election just by printing her name on a picture of her face and distributing it everywhere. DAYUM THAT UGLY ugly. I know they say politics is acting for ugly people, but they didn't mean THAT ugly. That's break the lens ugly. You really gotta $#@! up to lose to ugly on that level.

But he knew what was at stake and didn't reflect his constituents so he lost, nothing he could've done at the 11th hour, it was all about playing it cool. What a shame, I believe this is his first ever political loss?

PLEASE DONATE to Cindy Lake for Clark County, Nevada, Commissioner
- Good Name recognition, ran in 2014 and only lost by 1% to a million dollar campaign
- Has active support of the county GOP
- Opponent, Jim Gibson, is vulnerable and has a history losing due to the same scandal
- 2018 GOP primary result was 72%
- For liberty in Vegas

I just saw that woman's picture... holy $#@!ing $#@! on a pogo stick, that woman is ugly. Sanford must have screwed this up royally to get beat by that. Hell, you could win an election just by printing her name on a picture of her face and distributing it everywhere. DAYUM THAT UGLY ugly. I know they say politics is acting for ugly people, but they didn't mean THAT ugly. That's break the lens ugly. You really gotta $#@! up to lose to ugly on that level.

Sanford was essentially running against "Trump". Trump is going to politically destroy any opposition to the left, its far too late to do anything about it, Trump could literally shoot his vice president and get away with it.

Sanford was essentially running against "Trump". Trump is going to politically destroy any opposition to the left, its far too late to do anything about it, Trump could literally shoot his vice president and get away with it.

How stupid does a person have to be to run against Trump right now? The man clearly has broad and deep popular support, and despite all the nail biting and fretting hasn't done anything to justify any Chicken Little fears of authoritarian dictatorship, which makes critics who claim he is look both silly and petty at once.

Hell, the man hasn't even pulled Jim Acosta's press pass, even though he long ago had more than enough justification and now is practically compelled to do it.

How stupid does a person have to be to run against Trump right now? The man clearly has broad and deep popular support, and despite all the nail biting and fretting hasn't done anything to justify any Chicken Little fears of authoritarian dictatorship, which makes critics who claim he is look both silly and petty at once.

Hell, the man hasn't even pulled Jim Acosta's press pass, even though he long ago had more than enough justification and now is practically compelled to do it.

For libertarian-leaning candidates, running against Trump is NOT a winning strategy. It didn't work for Rand during the primaries, it didn't work for this guy and it won't work for anyone else. A far better strategy is to try to sell libertarian ideas under a populist banner to try and ride the wave. Populism is big, left and right, throughout the Western world. Libertarians with political ambitions either need to use this fact to their advantage or realize they'll be neutered politically.

NeoReactionary. American High Tory.
The counter-revolution will not be televised.

For libertarian-leaning candidates, running against Trump is NOT a winning strategy. It didn't work for Rand during the primaries, it didn't work for this guy and it won't work for anyone else. A far better strategy is to try to sell libertarian ideas under a populist banner to try and ride the wave. Populism is big, left and right, throughout the Western world. Libertarians with political ambitions either need to use this fact to their advantage or realize they'll be neutered politically.

But populism isn't hipster. Gotta go against the flow, even if the flow sometimes briefly flows in a direction that benefits us. As soon as it becomes popular, it isn't cool anymore, and we're out.

Yes, just what we need--more sexual shenanigans in the Senate. Sanford is a philanderer. Dude neglected the affairs of the state of South Carolina to be with some Argentine broadcaster. Sanford is why you now have Nikki Haley taking down the Confederate flag and moving on to UN Ambassador. Who actually did a lot of the negotiating in the run up to the US/DPRK summit.

"There are two freedoms - the false, where a man is free to do what he likes; the true, where he is free to do what he ought."~~Charles Kingsley

But populism isn't hipster. Gotta go against the flow, even if the flow sometimes briefly flows in a direction that benefits us. As soon as it becomes popular, it isn't cool anymore, and we're out.

It seems to work for Trump and his fan boys. Trump sold his candidacy with populist policies but once in office abandoned just about every single one of those policies. His anti neocon, take care of America policies were all but abandoned once he became president.

On the other hand, can you give an example where Mark Sanford went against Trump on any and I mean any of his populist policies? Any president to be successful doesn't just need yes men like Rand, he needs people to hold his feet to the fire and encourage him to do the right thing.

You can maintain power over people, as long as you give them something. Rob a man of everything, and that man will no longer be in your power.Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

Originally Posted by LibertyEagle

Trust principles; not people.

My Che avatar is my unique way of giving a big middle finger to the, the neocons, the globalists, imperialists and most importantly to the left and right political establishment who hate his guts till this day. My admiration for him ends where his anti imperialist pro communism ideology starts.

Yes, just what we need--more sexual shenanigans in the Senate. Sanford is a philanderer. Dude neglected the affairs of the state of South Carolina to be with some Argentine broadcaster. Sanford is why you now have Nikki Haley taking down the Confederate flag and moving on to UN Ambassador. Who actually did a lot of the negotiating in the run up to the US/DPRK summit.

I say he who is without sin cast the first stone, someone made a one time boo boo in life and we want to condemn them. trump is also a sexual deviant, and philanderer/adulterer. Also, it is a fact that we got Nikki Haley in the UN because of Trump, this is not the voters or another group of ignorant people who put her in position, it was Trump. So if you want to blame anyone for Nikki Haley, blame Trump.

You can maintain power over people, as long as you give them something. Rob a man of everything, and that man will no longer be in your power.Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

Originally Posted by LibertyEagle

Trust principles; not people.

My Che avatar is my unique way of giving a big middle finger to the, the neocons, the globalists, imperialists and most importantly to the left and right political establishment who hate his guts till this day. My admiration for him ends where his anti imperialist pro communism ideology starts.

For libertarian-leaning candidates, running against Trump is NOT a winning strategy. It didn't work for Rand during the primaries, it didn't work for this guy and it won't work for anyone else. A far better strategy is to try to sell libertarian ideas under a populist banner to try and ride the wave. Populism is big, left and right, throughout the Western world. Libertarians with political ambitions either need to use this fact to their advantage or realize they'll be neutered politically.

Who could imagine that a candidate running in a primary would dare attack the front runner. I cannot imagine anything more blasphemous than that. The fact that it did not work for him doesn't mean that it is a bad strategy to criticize Trump. Watch this next coming election how many people who criticize Trump/go against Trump supported candidates kick ass.

You look weak and impotent if you are afraid to attack the front runner. In fact, I will go as far as to say that I will not vote for anyone who is too timid and weak to confront a front runner. Not saying that is all they should be doing but if they shy away from it, I will shy away from voting for said politician(actually, I don't vote anymore). Just saying

You can maintain power over people, as long as you give them something. Rob a man of everything, and that man will no longer be in your power.Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

Originally Posted by LibertyEagle

Trust principles; not people.

My Che avatar is my unique way of giving a big middle finger to the, the neocons, the globalists, imperialists and most importantly to the left and right political establishment who hate his guts till this day. My admiration for him ends where his anti imperialist pro communism ideology starts.

It seems to work for Trump and his fan boys. Trump sold his candidacy with populist policies but once in office abandoned just about every single one of those policies. His anti neocon, take care of America policies were all but abandoned once he became president.

On the other hand, can you give an example where Mark Sanford went against Trump on any and I mean any of his populist policies? Any president to be successful doesn't just need yes men like Rand, he needs people to hold his feet to the fire and encourage him to do the right thing.

I wasn't necessarily referring to Sanford here. To be honest, I've no idea what Sanford did or Trump did to put the two of them at odds.

I was making reference to the libertarians who recoil in horror at the mention of populism and see it more like a turd to be scraped off the boot than something that could actually propel them into power (or non-power, considering how they'd "rule"). Trump knows how to use populism to his advantage. I'd be taking notes. But, as I said, as soon as something becomes popular, for some people it loses its appeal, and I think that's a major problem which has plagued the libertarian party's attempt to break into the mainstream. ThePaleoLibertarian is absolutely right in his comment above. Either the libertarian party starts using populism to their advantage or they will continue to wallow in obscurity.

pop·u·lism
ˈpäpyəˌlizəm/
noun
noun: populism
support for the concerns of ordinary people.

I wasn't necessarily referring to Sanford here. To be honest, I've no idea what Sanford did or Trump did to put the two of them at odds.

I was making reference to the libertarians who recoil in horror at the mention of populism and see it more like a turd to be scraped off the boot than something that could actually propel them into power (or non-power, considering how they'd "rule"). Trump knows how to use populism to his advantage. I'd be taking notes. But, as I said, as soon as something becomes popular, for some people it loses its appeal, and I think that's a major problem which has plagued the libertarian party's attempt to break into the mainstream. ThePaleoLibertarian is absolutely right in his comment above. Either the libertarian party starts using populism to their advantage or they will continue to wallow in obscurity.

Heavens no! Can't let the libertarian party be associated with that.

Paleolibertarian is a Trump worshiping fan boy who disapproves of anyone that doesn't kiss Trump's ass. Just the mere idea that a politician competing with Trump for votes would dare criticize him is anathema for him. He also conflates the libertarian party with libertarian leaning republicans. I am not well read on the libertarian party so I am not going to try and argue with u there but if you are talking about libertarian leaning republicans, then he is wrong. They too support populism, how else can you explain their desire to cut taxes (popular) without cutting spending(another popular policy).

These people have shown than they would compromise their principles for party and populism. From what I have read about Sanford, he never opposed any of Trump's populist policies. He disagreed with him in areas where he was acting like a progressive and a non conservative and that caused a rift with him and Trump.

You can maintain power over people, as long as you give them something. Rob a man of everything, and that man will no longer be in your power.Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

Originally Posted by LibertyEagle

Trust principles; not people.

My Che avatar is my unique way of giving a big middle finger to the, the neocons, the globalists, imperialists and most importantly to the left and right political establishment who hate his guts till this day. My admiration for him ends where his anti imperialist pro communism ideology starts.

Who could imagine that a candidate running in a primary would dare attack the front runner. I cannot imagine anything more blasphemous than that. The fact that it did not work for him doesn't mean that it is a bad strategy to criticize Trump. Watch this next coming election how many people who criticize Trump/go against Trump supported candidates kick ass.

You look weak and impotent if you are afraid to attack the front runner. In fact, I will go as far as to say that I will not vote for anyone who is too timid and weak to confront a front runner. Not saying that is all they should be doing but if they shy away from it, I will shy away from voting for said politician(actually, I don't vote anymore). Just saying

It isn't that he attacked him, it's how and when. Whatever you think of him, Trump tapped into a very real and fruitful vein of support, mostly from people discontent with immigration and modern American culture. A whole host of Conservatism Inc. types started piling on and Rand looked like just another one of those. If you read my posts from that period, you'll see that I was fine with him attacking Trump, provided it was an effective strategy that helped the campaign. It wasn't. Rand's campaign was dysfunctional and ineffective and I was one of the first on RPF to bring up the manifest problems when most others were just blindly following something that clearly wasn't working.

I mean, I know libertarian are allergic to effective political strategy, but at least try to appear like you know what you're talking about.

NeoReactionary. American High Tory.
The counter-revolution will not be televised.

For libertarian-leaning candidates, running against Trump is NOT a winning strategy.

It depends. Amash is doing ok--he got more votes than Trump in his district and doesn't really have a serious primary challenge. Rand on the other hand got fewer votes than Trump so he made the right decision to not go the "NeverTrump" route.

Paleolibertarian is a Trump worshiping fan boy who disapproves of anyone that doesn't kiss Trump's ass. Just the mere idea that a politician competing with Trump for votes would dare criticize him is anathema for him.

That is complete and utter garbage. You are either a liar or an idiot. Well, you are an idiot, but this statement either comes from your obvious stupidity or dishonesty. You are incapable of salient commentary of any sort, I just wonder if you're a liar in addition to that fact. I have been exceedingly even-handed with Trump and I've posted about him far less than the vast majority of people who post here. You cannot find a single post from me "kissing his ass" or anything of the kind.

He also conflates the libertarian party with libertarian leaning republicans. I am not well read on the libertarian party so I am not going to try and argue with u there but if you are talking about libertarian leaning republicans, then he is wrong.

What are you babbling about, fool? Who mentioned the Libertarian Part at all? I haven't said word one about them in this thread. The Republicans can't seem to get elected by going anti-Trump or anti-populist, but the LP can't get elected no matter what they do. They have nothing to do with this.

They too support populism, how else can you explain their desire to cut taxes (popular) without cutting spending(another popular policy).

Jeb Bush (supposedly) supported cutting taxes. That is not what this populist movement is about. This is across the Western world. It's about culture, immigration and identity. Going to people who clamor for these issues with tax cuts is doing it wrong, especially the way they sell it.

These people have shown than they would compromise their principles for party and populism. From what I have read about Sanford, he never opposed any of Trump's populist policies. He disagreed with him in areas where he was acting like a progressive and a non conservative and that caused a rift with him and Trump.

Funny thing is, I'm not even a populist. Populism is demotic in nature. I have no value for "the people" and their political will in principle. All I am doing is analyzing strategy and evaluating what works and what doesn't.

NeoReactionary. American High Tory.
The counter-revolution will not be televised.

It depends. Amash is doing ok--he got more votes than Trump in his district and doesn't really have a serious primary challenge. Rand on the other hand got fewer votes than Trump so he made the right decision to not go the "NeverTrump" route.

If going Amash is going after Trump and that really is working (as opposed to just not hurting him), great he should continue. However, I'd say that looking at the board the way it stands, that is going to be the exception, not the rule.

NeoReactionary. American High Tory.
The counter-revolution will not be televised.

On the other hand, can you give an example where Mark Sanford went against Trump on any and I mean any of his populist policies?

Trade. Immigration. Spending bill with the wall. Not to hard to find. Google harder.

Any president to be successful doesn't just need yes men like Rand, he needs people to hold his feet to the fire and encourage him to do the right thing.

Ummm... Yeah. So.... I have no idea what prompted that statement but Rand has opposed Trump at more potential political cost than ANY other Republican in Congress. That isn't my opinion. That is fact. A non-debatable statement. He just frames his opposition in way where he is on Trump's side opposing his bad advisors.

It isn't that he attacked him, it's how and when. Whatever you think of him, Trump tapped into a very real and fruitful vein of support, mostly from people discontent with immigration and modern American culture. A whole host of Conservatism Inc. types started piling on and Rand looked like just another one of those. If you read my posts from that period, you'll see that I was fine with him attacking Trump, provided it was an effective strategy that helped the campaign. It wasn't. Rand's campaign was dysfunctional and ineffective and I was one of the first on RPF to bring up the manifest problems when most others were just blindly following something that clearly wasn't working.

I mean, I know libertarian are allergic to effective political strategy, but at least try to appear like you know what you're talking about.

I agree with you on the effectiveness of the Rand campaign. Personally, I think he wasted too much time talking about surveillance and the constitution. I have come to realize that nobody really cares about that document especially the particulars. Voters just want to be safe and prosper in their homeland and if that means govt surveilling their every move? they are just OK with it.

Secondly, his criticism of Trump conservative cred was the best way to attack Trump but something unusual happened, the media with its unfair attack and constant coverage of Trump, made him into a martyr for republicans to rally behind. At that point, it didn't really matter what what said or who said it, you were seen as part of the
republican enemy for criticizing Trump. Rand's strategy at the point was just fine, I can see no better way of playing it.

You can maintain power over people, as long as you give them something. Rob a man of everything, and that man will no longer be in your power.Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

Originally Posted by LibertyEagle

Trust principles; not people.

My Che avatar is my unique way of giving a big middle finger to the, the neocons, the globalists, imperialists and most importantly to the left and right political establishment who hate his guts till this day. My admiration for him ends where his anti imperialist pro communism ideology starts.

Trade. Immigration. Spending bill with the wall. Not to hard to find. Google harder.

Ummm... Yeah. So.... I have no idea what prompted that statement but Rand has opposed Trump at more potential political cost than ANY other Republican in Congress. That isn't my opinion. That is fact. A non-debatable statement. He just frames his opposition in way where he is on Trump's side opposing his bad advisors.

On criticized the aluminium and steel tariffs but those weren't the populist policies he ran on trade with. Its one thing if Sanford criticized him not signing the TPP. So I wouldn't really consider this going against his populist trade policies..

Immigration and spending bill on the wall are one issue here and this is what Sanford has said about it.

He also drew a loud rebuttal(from pro immigration group) for saying he would vote for Trump’s planned border wall or fence and that the proposal enjoyed popular support, with the caveat it needs a funding source.

You can maintain power over people, as long as you give them something. Rob a man of everything, and that man will no longer be in your power.Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

Originally Posted by LibertyEagle

Trust principles; not people.

My Che avatar is my unique way of giving a big middle finger to the, the neocons, the globalists, imperialists and most importantly to the left and right political establishment who hate his guts till this day. My admiration for him ends where his anti imperialist pro communism ideology starts.

I agree with you on the effectiveness of the Rand campaign. Personally, I think he wasted too much time talking about surveillance and the constitution. I have come to realize that nobody really cares about that document especially the particulars. Voters just want to be safe and prosper in their homeland and if that means govt surveilling their every move? they are just OK with it.

Yes, people want to be safe. It's number two on Maslow's hierarchy. This is a natural and healthy inclination that, sadly, the demotic state uses to spy on people. If you want people to go against such things you must accomplish two goals:

1. A vision of safety that doesn't need such programs
2. An emotional argument in opposition to spying programs

Secondly, his criticism of Trump conservative cred was the best way to attack Trump

Everyone was attacking Trump for his "conservative cred", you idiot! Jeb Bush was trying to woo voters by talking about how Trump would raise taxes. It was a losing strategy because Trump tapped into something visceral, on the gut level of voters, something a libertarian candidate could do, but won't because they're incapable of internalizing effective strategy.

but something unusual happened, the media with its unfair attack and constant coverage of Trump, made him into a martyr for republicans to rally behind. At that point, it didn't really matter what what said or who said it, you were seen as part of the
republican enemy for criticizing Trump. Rand's strategy at the point was just fine, I can see no better way of playing it.

This is just incoherent nonsense. "The strategy was great! Trump was martyred by the people attacking him because of the media!" It's stupid and so are you. A strategy that loses is bad strategy and no one voted for Trump because other candidates were attacking him and he was thus a "martyr".

NeoReactionary. American High Tory.
The counter-revolution will not be televised.

I say he who is without sin cast the first stone, someone made a one time boo boo in life and we want to condemn them.

His was a big one. It was a public one. There were a series of unexplained absences. He told his family he would be hiking the Appalachian Trail. Maybe that's what they call it in Argentina. He was charged with misuse of state funds to carry on his licentious behavior, because it turns out the woman in Argentina was not the first.

A congressman needs to be ethical and focused. We need people there who dial down the crazy.

"There are two freedoms - the false, where a man is free to do what he likes; the true, where he is free to do what he ought."~~Charles Kingsley